- (1.) This judgment will dispose of revision petitions No. 2293 and 2294 of 1988. It has arisen in the following circumstances :- The land of the Punjab Wakf Board was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector gave the award. The claiment was dissatisfied with the award and got a reference made to the Land Acquisition Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act). During the pendency of the reference, the Land Acquisition Collector, Punjab State Electricity Board made an application that it may be made party-respondent in this case. The application was allowed by the land acquisition Court vide order dated May 9, 1988. The claimed did not make them parties since they wanted to challenge in this Court the order where the Land Acquisition Court had allowed the Punjab State Electricity Board and the Collector as party-respondents. This order is the subject matter of challenge under Civil Revision No. 2293 of 1988.
(2.) Since the order was not complied with, the land acquisition Court dismissed the reference for non-prosecution. This order is the subject matter of challenge under Civil Revision No. 2294 of 1988.
(3.) The land acquisition Court is in error in holding that the Punjab State Electricity Board and the Collector are necessary parties to the petition. This matter is no more res integra and stands settled by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in M/s Indo Swiss Time Limited v. Umrao and others, 1981 RajdhaniLR 403, where the Bench after referring to the Supreme Court judgment reported as Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Chandulal Shamaladas Patel and others, 1970 1 SCWR 183 held as under : "(1) That an application under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being impleaded as a party by the company is not legally maintainable; (2) That the company is not an interested person so as to give it a right to become a party to the proceedings in reference before the District Judge; (3) that the only right under the Act available to the company is to appear and adduce evidence for the determination of the amount of compensation, and (4) that the company by itself would have no right to file an appeal." This judgment was-again followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Pritam Singh v. Punjab State and another,1983 RajdhaniLR 2370, where the dispute arose in the following circumstances :- "Against the award of the land acquisition Court under section 18 of the Act, the Punjab State Electricity Board preferred an appeal in this Court and this Court held that the appeal on behalf of the Punjab State Electricity Board and the Collector was not competent in view of the Full Bench decision referred supra.";